keyso_get_report_simple_similarkeys

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only provides the HTTP method, path, and an example request. It does not describe what the response contains, whether pagination has defaults, what authorization is needed, or how results are scoped, so the agent gets only a minimal read-only hint from 'GET'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and contains no obvious fluff, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. A noun phrase, method, path, and a single example do not form a complete tool description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a report endpoint with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is missing core context: what the complementary phrases look like, default page/per_page values, pagination behavior, and how this report relates to sibling reports. The example request helps but does not make the tool safely selectable and callable by an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including sort format and filter details. The example URL demonstrates combining base, keyword, sort, page, and per_page, slightly reinforcing the schema, but the description does not add significant semantic meaning beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Дополняющие фразы' and an explicit GET path, so an agent can infer that this endpoint returns complementary phrases for a keyword. However, it lacks a clear verb such as 'returns' or 'fetches', and the noun phrase alone does not strongly distinguish it from the many report_simple_* sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No sentence explains when to use this tool versus the many sibling report tools. The endpoint and 'Дополняющие фразы' imply use for similar/complementary phrases, but there is no explicit condition, alternative, or exclusion, leaving selection mostly to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.